Namely, they might reproach me for:
- 1. exaggerating the authority of Pius X Catechism, which is clearly Young Earth Creationist, when they could say, the catechism was only regionally the saint's jurisdictional will?
- 2. not basing my apologetics on the 24 Thomistic Theses who are ordered by the same saint?
If I have difficulty to possible dissent on the three 7, 11 and 14 and endorse each of the other ones, would that make me a heretic?
I am very clearly not opposed to Dei Filius, 24 April 1870. Nor is any of my inspirations, Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, Chesterton or Belloc.
On 7 - there are also other views on the nature of spiritual creatures, not even angels and rational souls are perfectly simple, only God is, and that is a tenet of some Church Fathers, I think St. John of Damascus. As is mentioned by C. S. Lewis or even Tolkien.
On 11 - Bishop Tempier certainly did not agree with St. Thomas, and with equal certainty also did not directly condemn what he said either.
On 14 - I have a hard time seeing how
pure matter could give rise to what dogs and cats seem to have, namely sensation as we have sensation.
Now, for Tempier.
- St. Thomas claims that matter in fact is the principle of individuation within a species, and that angels, this being so, and angels lacking matter, cannot be different from each other, for instance Gabriel from Raphael, except by being different species;
- Bishop Tempier condemns that God can not make angels individually different without making them specifically different.
They do not directly contradict each other.
However, one objection against the 24 Theses being obligatory for all Catholics is, that Pope St. Pius X adressed them to the bishops of Italy.
1. Doctoris Angelici was addressed not to the Universal Church but to the Bishops of Italy it does not therefore constitute an exercise of the universal teaching office and so could be in error.
Ad 1. This objection does not hold for two reasons. First, Postquam Sanctisimus [sic] which followed Doctoris Angelici and clarified its meaning with the 24 Theses contains no such reservation. Second, the authority of Vatican II supplies for any defect in the authority of Doctoris Angelici even if such were supposed to exist (and it is not clear that a Pope cannot exercise the universal teaching office in a document addressed to a particular individual or group).
Retraction
September 12, 2007
Posted by aelianus under Philosophia Perennis
https://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/retraction/
I am not able to check whether "no such reservation" means "to the Bishops of Italy" or something else. You see, the Vatican does not show forth the documents.
Constitutiones Apostolicae ends on In praecipuis (29 Iunii 1913)
Adhortationes Apostolicae only contains Haerent animo (die 4 Augusti anno 1908)
Epistulae ends on Iucunda equidem (20 ianuarii 1914)
Litterae Apostolicae ends on Consistoriali decreto (25 Octobris 1913)
Litterae Encyclicae ends on Singulari quadam (24 Septembris 1912)
Motu Proprio ends on Quanta semper cura (16 Ianuarii 1914)
Allocutiones ends on Relicturus Ecclesiam (16 Decembris 1907)
and this is the case on Paris time 21:09 of 8.XI.2022. See:
S. Pius PP. X, Giuseppe Sarto
4.VIII.1903-20.VIII.1914
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la.html
It so happens, the same post refers to another argument too.
Canon 1366.
§ 2. Professors shall treat studies in rational theology and philosophy and the instruction of students in these disciplines according to the system, teaching, and principles of the Angelic Doctor and hold to them religiously.
I have a difficulty in seeing this as an eternal ban on all faithful taking the position of Bishop Tempier on angels. Professors of seminaries are only part of the faithful.
Nevertheless, one of the objections to my strong stance on Catechism of Pius X is based on its being directed to the bishops of Italy, but this seems to be true for Doctoris Angelici as well. So, unless Postquam Sanctissimus was to the Church universal,
AFTER OUR MOST HOLY LORD Pope Pius X by His Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici, of June 29, 1914, salubriously prescribed that in all schools of philosophy the principles and major pronouncements [maiora pronuntiata] of Thomas Aquinas be held in a holy manner, not a few masters from diverse Institutions proposed some theses [theses] for this Sacred Congregation to examine, which they themselves had been accustomed to hand down and defend as required according to the chief principles of the saintly teacher, especially in the subject of metaphysics.
This Sacred Congregation, having duly examined the aforementioned theses and having presented them to our most holy lord, by the mandate of the same, His Holiness, replies that they plainly contain those principles and major pronouncements of the holy Doctor.
I refrain from giving the Latin original, though it is available here, since the English translation is not my own:
Sacred Congregation of Studies
Decree of Approval of some theses contained in the Doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas and proposed to the Teachers of Philosophy
July 27, 1914.
in English and Latin, translated by Hugh McDonald
Edited and Substantially Revised by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
https://isidore.co/misc/Res%20pro%20Deo/Congregations/24%20Thomistic%20Theses.pdf
Precisely like canon 1366 § 2, the decree covers teachers of philosophy in seminaries. It is not a requirement for every faithful to believe this and also not a requirement for all seminarians to believe each of the 24 theses, it is a paedagogical law, not a law of doctrine proposed to the whole Church. It does NOT overturn the tolerance given by Leo XIII to Scotism, which is of especial importance as to thesis 11. It is also not a requirement for giving a nihil obstat, especially not for any of my material going outside this potential area of conflict, and indeed, all things Creationist do go outside it. They are on a lower and more down to earth level. As St. Thomas often is.
Now, the blogpost* I cited actually also names the authority of Vatican II as a reason to accept each and all of the 24 Theses integrally. If Pope Michael was correct** that John XXII, Paul VI, John Paul I, as well as their successors*** were never popes, this means the reason there cited is a non-reason. Let me cite* again:
The question thus arose of whether the Holy See was closing down these schools so that only schools within the pale of Thomism would now be tolerated. Unfortunately Pius X was unable to answer this question as he died, less than a month after issuing Postquam Sanctissimus, on 20th August 1914. Pius X had said in Pascendi (1907) that “there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method”
I have no dislike at all for the scholastic method. I may have a preference for Tempier in the middle between Thomas and Scotus over either of them. But that is not a dislike for the scholastic method. I do not know where Suarezians would differ from the 24.
And obviously, it may have been so that while Pius X was a real Pope and a real Saint he personally had a problem with Scotus or Suarez that didn't exist, and God called him home before he could disfigure papacy by making a wrong decision on this one. That could be one of the ways in which infallibility works.
But in any way, none of the 24 theses is incompatible with Young Earth Creationism (St. Thomas was a Young Earth Creationist) and none of them is incompatible with Geocentrism (St. Thomas was a Geocentric, and the fleshed out version of Prima Via in Contra Gentes actually does get into that, plus Bruno would have been using the scholastic method as far as Aristotelism is concerned somewhat correctly in arguing from many "worlds" (understood as solar systems) and many independent "daily" rotations (of each planet in each system) to a divinity for each world, while Thomas argues from Geocentrism to unity of God°).
St. Pius X seems to have left cosmology alone, but was Young Earth Creationist, at least from Adam on, as expressed in his Catechism.°° So, he does not condemn Geocentrism, he actively endorses Young Earth Creationism, he is no reason against my writings, but rather his authority is a reason for them, at least excluding those where theses 7, 11 and 14 are concerned..
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of All Saints
8.XI.2022
Notes:
* Retraction Posted by aelianus.
** Though he could have been pope even all of the named ones were actual popes.
*** Three evolutionist "Popes" and the first one came out as such soon after the election of Pope Michael, for his papacy to be valid it suffices that John Paul II was not Pope in 1990, either never was or lost it, and from that would follow elections in 2005 and 2013 were invalid.
° Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 11 > Article 3. Whether God is one?
Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
This argument is attacked by modern cosmology. That is one of my reasons to oppose it.
°° It is in theory and considering the old earth arguments then available, lacking C14 method, compatible with a scenario in which no man existed prior to c. 6000 or little over 7000 years ago, but lots of non-human creatures did, from which we do
not descend. But making the world old would mean atmospheric Carbon 14 levels would already have reached stability, equilibrium between contamination from cosmos and radioactive decay from within the sample, and then a carbon date of 40 000 BP would have to be actually the date of such and such a human being.
